Perspective Around New Zealand
If you want to broaden your thinking broaden your reading and not just about history but the history of individual subjects. Anyone being more familiar with the history of media has a much better insight into our current events. Media history within countries, the history of say Pravda in Russia as an example is quite different to US media or British media history. Our early New Zealand media is iconic in leading development in the final frontier country but our current media is more reflective of periods of history in other countries.
I know from the blank faces in the conversations that I have that the public is extremely vague and uninformed in this respect. If you are too, do something about it. We haven’t seen a time in this country where our journalism has been so dysfunctional and disruptive. The blank faces of trained media participants reflect in their thoughts seen through social media as they, digest the recent changes.
We’ve moved from an age (in our country now) from media being informative and functional to an age where it’s influential and commanding. The understanding can be found in the previous years of writing and the development of the media industry in itself, and its relationship with politics.
Within our own small industry we have arrogant abusive wallies who are defending their perceived reputation through their dogmatic defence of their own career participation as opposed to being open-minded and educational with the next generation of media graduates.
UhHa. Penny drop?
So, we can dissappear down a similar rabbit hole in competitive academic social analysis – the public is less vague about that particular conversation.
When we look back over the last 40 years as the family court developed its business, men were subject to the social norms of the day. As the court’s legal influence became more prominent in society and more visible from behind its secretive veil men were judged first by public perception which held quite simply a reflection of our open criminal courts, whereby, if you had been to court you must have done something wrong.
This in turn made the process of demonising men with the “all men are violent and abusive” label much more acceptable though a picture by association with the worst cases that were visible in news papers and on television that came from our criminal trials.
The feminist processes of which there are many not just the above example were having the effect of creating a them and us. If you’re a man you’ll side with us not the nobody we’ve rightfully abused and excluded.
This has the function of assisting the collective belief among women where they can raise that borg army to fire up with the instant pile-on which we saw dramatically demonstrated this week through Judith Collins attacking Simon Bridges with the feminist principle; we can be offended about anything we want to be.
There was an expectation from Collins that this would not only work but be accepted. She has a history of this and will have created a deep disappointment in many of her loyal following that admired her conservative profile.
Without dwelling on that because it’s current, look at the bigger picture where there is a comprehensive media profile that reflects in the feminisation of New Zealand over the last 50 years.
As observed above, we can look at media history overseas and likewise they can look at our media history that we have created or are creating in New Zealand … although not many will be interested in the significance of our early journalism and the role that played in the development of our country.
The current focus will be on what has happened in the last 4 and a half years when Labour pulled out their hibernating toy for a last minute win of the 2017 election through to the significant media changes we have seen in this current term of government.
It’s very relevant to the political world overseas. Then you understand why media in democratic countries are showing such hostility towards Ardern and contempt for our administration, if you haven’t seen it, from their threatened perspective.
What also needs to be realised is that radical Māori both political and academic are just as capable of using the same history and processes. One of the most significant examples is where they create a media context that makes the average Kiwi laugh at the message while sending an entirely different cultutal message to their own following.
The rising Māori elite by using a comparative strategy are creating a racial superiority similar to the feminist superiority created by our feminist elite.
Not everyone is blind to this and the risks are not just an Apartheid state but aggression between Māori men and other men if not other women as we have also seen recently.
To add to this unholy mess the Ardern camp runs a parody on Christianity to create acceptance of their political positions and legislative processes. The country has grown up with a developed trust in its Christian roots and is equally trusting of the messages that have come in that form, from the Government’s Podium of Truth and Struth.
Whenever this becomes jeopardised out comes the politics of fear and we transition to the Podium of manufactured Panic if not some other mild distraction.
These concepts can sound very much like political rhetoric … who believes in the politics of fear. That’s like admitting you’re scared of the news (which some people are) rather than realising, that I will now respond this way rather than that way.
These concepts are quite real in their effects on behavior.
With these separate media cliques it’s easy to be in one and oblivious to the other. I made this point in a recent post that men have been subjected to this media prison that’s very effective at shutting down and isolating those voices.
Once again I make the point at looking at where you get your news from to see the real picture that sits in front of us now and not the manufacturered picture that obscures what we should be seeing.
This is the difference between stability and disruption when these two (or more) pictures become separated and conflicting.
That’s much more confusing than the same picture viewed from different angles which is typically what we experience in political discussions.
It’s men that need to catch up with the media effects they have been subjected to. For women it’s a different case where we can see increasingly women being indignant and intolerant of their feminist sisters and the world they would command.
We or what we all should see though, is the threat to the way of life that we have known.
I can see change more likely in the rural community. There is a greater level of social trust, people know each other better, and it is very often the case in rural New Zealand that your reputation precedes you essentially if disaster follows you.
In the urban development of recent media it has more often been a comparison of those right wing extremists versus the mainstream.
In rural communities where people know each other better the 5th Estate is a more realistic competitive threat to local papers. If they don’t want to lose credibility they have to be more accurate than opinionated.
Apart from changes in the media this has and is why the current government is so focused on funding rural journalism. The threat is real to a totally centralised government. There’s a three way competition there and you can quickly guess who is more transparent.
It’s very likely that this effect is what turned people off Collins and National and participation in Groundswell. They were more likely to believe a four leaf clover than the lack of substance.
But regardless the experience created many new relationships on the ground not just some change in media and journalism.
Not all changes originate in the centre of town and following this trend to its natural conclusion you can see the influence the rural community could have in deciding the next government in a different way to the last election.